RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.
The +1 sword can have +9 worth of abilities. But remember, enhancement bonuses do not stack. So if you want to make the sword a +2, you have to add +2 from either the bonded weapon or greater magic weapon, not just +1. If the sword is a +2, then the it can only have 8 abilities.
EDIT:The enhancement bonus from greater magic weapon does not stack. The paladin bonded weapon ability does, because it specifically states it does in the rules.
Yes, you actually can, temporarily, get a weapon higher than a +10 equivalency weapon. It's not just with Paladins either.
If you have a +1 flaming vorpal greatsword of speed (a +10 weapon) and then cast greater magic weapon on it, you can get between a +2 and +5 magic weapon that also has the flaming, vorpal, and speed properties, making it equivalent to a +14 weapon.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Yes, you actually can, temporarily, get a weapon higher than a +10 equivalency weapon. It's not just with Paladins either.
If you have a +1 flaming vorpal greatsword of speed (a +10 weapon) and then cast greater magic weapon on it, you can get between a +2 and +5 magic weapon that also has the flaming, vorpal, and speed properties, making it equivalent to a +14 weapon.
Where in the rules is this located? As I posted above, its not possible.
Perhaps I misunderstood his question. I thought he was asking as to the effective +X of all combined abilities, not the enhancement bonus itself. A +1 weapon has a +1 enhancement bonus. If you cast greater magic weapon on it, it can become a +2 enhancement bonus weapon (the +2 overlaps).
If the sword was a +1 flaming sword, then it would become a +2 flaming sword, as the enhancement bonus to hit and damage does not stack (likewise the enhancement bonus from masterwork does not stack with a +1 weapon).
However, I was under the impression he was asking in relation to special abilities. As I pointed out in my previous post, if you have a +1 weapon with +9 worth of special abilities, these are not enhancement bonuses, merely special abilities which count against the total price and power of the weapon. So a +1 flaming vorpal greatsword of speed (+1 enhancement bonus and +9 worth of special abilities) that has a high caster level greater magic weapon spell cast on it can reach being a +5 flaming vorpal greatsword of speed for the duration of the GMW effect; because the greater magic weapon effect modifies the enhancement bonus independent of the special abilities.
The same applies to armor as well. A +1 armor and +1 shield loaded with +9 worth of special abilities can reach the equivalency of a +14 armor while buffed with magic vestment.
Perhaps I misunderstood his question. I thought he was asking as to the effective +X of all combined abilities, not the enhancement bonus itself. A +1 weapon has a +1 enhancement bonus. If you cast greater magic weapon on it, it can become a +2 enhancement bonus weapon (the +2 overlaps).
If the sword was a +1 flaming sword, then it would become a +2 flaming sword, as the enhancement bonus to hit and damage does not stack (likewise the enhancement bonus from masterwork does not stack with a +1 weapon).
However, I was under the impression he was asking in relation to special abilities. As I pointed out in my previous post, if you have a +1 weapon with +9 worth of special abilities, these are not enhancement bonuses, merely special abilities which count against the total price and power of the weapon. So a +1 flaming vorpal greatsword of speed (+1 enhancement bonus and +9 worth of special abilities) that has a high caster level greater magic weapon spell cast on it can reach being a +5 flaming vorpal greatsword of speed for the duration of the GMW effect; because the greater magic weapon effect modifies the enhancement bonus independent of the special abilities.
The same applies to armor as well. A +1 armor and +1 shield loaded with +9 worth of special abilities can reach the equivalency of a +14 armor while buffed with magic vestment.
It was the combined value of the item, that was in question.
But Thomas LeBlanc's quote from the prd states that it cannot be raised above +10 no matter what: "A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10."
Since they've included character abilities and spells, it seems to include GMW.
|
Where in the rules is this located? As I posted above, its not possible.GMW doesn't make the weapon higher than +10.
It, however, does give the weapon a separate enhancement bonus that overlaps with the real enchantment on it.
So you could have a +1 vorpal speed weapon, and you could have a greater magic weapon spell active on it that would give attacks with it higher than a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks/damage,
James
By the rule quoted twice in this thread this in not correct. It is very plainly written and worded.
What is your explanation for the part where it says "including those from character abilities and spells", if the rule only counts for the permanent bonuses?
Here's an example- You have a +1 bane (human) longsword, then you cast GMW on it (say at CL 8) it now has +1 bane (human) and +2 on it. Normally you would have a +2 to hit and damage from it, but against humans you would have a +3 to hit and damage from it. Why not +4? Because the sword is not a +2 bane (human) longsword. The GMW spell does not increase a weapons enchantments, rather it simply gives the enchantment.
Incorrect. If you have a +1 humanbane weapon, and you cast an 8th level GMW on it, it gains a +2 enhancement bonus. Thus it becomes a +1 +2 humanbane weapon. But the +2 overrides the +1, so it's effectively a +2 humanbane weapon. And like any +2 humanbane, it'd be as if it was a +4 against humans.
Incorrect. If you have a +1 humanbane weapon, and you cast an 8th level GMW on it, it gains a +2 enhancement bonus. Thus it becomes a +1 +2 humanbane weapon. But the +2 overrides the +1, so it's effectively a +2 humanbane weapon. And like any +2 humanbane, it'd be as if it was a +4 against humans.If I fire a +1 human(bane) arrow from a +2 bow at a human, what bonus to I get to hit from the magic here?
-James
+2 Longbow with +1 Bane(Human) arrow is :
Fired at Human : +3 Bane(Human), does 1d10 + 2d6 + 3 dmg
Fired at Elf : +2 arrow, does 1d10 + 2 dmg
The bow overrides the arrow if it's better than the arrow (in the case of the elf). The arrow overrides the bow if it's better than the bow (in the case of the human). Note that only applies to enhancement bonuses. If the bow were, say, a +2 flaming, then when fired at the human it would be a +3 Flaming Bane(Human) arrow that did 1d10 + 2d6 (bane) + 1d6 (fire) + 3 dmg.
EDIT : Note that due to the rules about arrows and abilities stacking for them, you could concievably have an arrow hit with more than +10. +5 Flaming/Acidic/Shocking/Frosting/Bane(human) arrow fired from a +1 Holy/Axiomatic/Bane(Elf) bow would end up being a +5 Flaming/Acidic/Shocking/Frosting/Holy/Axiomatic/Bane(Human)/Bane(Elf) arrow.
If you're a half-elf, you REALLY don't want to be hit by the above, as it would end up being a +7 Flaming/Acidic/shocking/frosting/holy/axiomatic/Bane(Human)/Bane(Elf) bow. The bane for human and bane for elf stack for the poor half-elf, doing 4d6 extra damage and popping the enhancement up by 2.
The quoted rule above clearly states that a total of +10 is all you can do (pre the Epic Rules we don't have in PF).
So what would happen is that you'd have to make a choice...burn some of the supplemental special abilities to gain the extra effects, in effect 'swapping/overlaying' out things you don't want right now for things that you do.
For the +1 Dancing Vorpal sword with a +5 GMW, you would have to make the choice of wasting the spell, or giving up Dancing or Vorpal to gain the effect. The jug can only get so full.
The Paladin would have the same choice. He could remove the generic effects he doesn't want to put on the effects he does, for the duration.
Until there is errata allowing the total bonus to exceed +10 via spells, the +10 cap is what we have to live with.
===Aelryinth
The Paladin would have the same choice. He could remove the generic effects he doesn't want to put on the effects he does, for the duration.Until there is errata allowing the total bonus to exceed +10 via spells, the +10 cap is what we have to live with.
===Aelryinth
Personally I wouldn't rule that effects can be removed. In the event of divine bond or GMW, I'd say that only the 'free space' of the weapon is used.
So the +1 vorpal dancing sword becomes a +4 vorpal dancing sword, even though the caster of GMW is high enough level to provide a +5 bonus.The rules don't give premise for a clear ruling, but in my opinion, the permanent enhancement can't be removed/changed unless an ability specifically does it.
The quoted rule above clearly states that a total of +10 is all you can do (pre the Epic Rules we don't have in PF).
Unfortunately, what we have here is poorly worded rules that directly conflict with each other. There's two ways to interpret it :
A) The section about greater than +10 is in the magic item creation (weapons) section. You can interpret this as meaning that the rule applies to creation, and that all other rules apply after creation.
B) You can interpret the +10 limit as applying in all situations, not just item creation.
If you choose A, then you are going to have situations where the effective bonus of a specific attack made with a weapon is > +10.
If you choose B, then you are going to have situations where the rules about how spells and items work together are contridicted without any specification on how to handle them. For example, in the arrow example I gave above, no rules for which abilities drop off, does the GM choose, or the player, or the target? Is it random?
I prefer interpretation A because it makes any +10's situation applications on an attack made by a weapon, not the weapon itself as being > +10. I prefer this one as it requires no houserules and allows all other rules specified to work normally.
If you prefer B, you'll need to create house rules for how to handle instances where effective bonus rises above +10. These have to be houserules, because there is nothing in the rules to decide which ones don't work.
Bane doesn't stack with itself.
Bane Human doesn't stack with Bane Human, Bane (Elf) and Bane (Human) both apply against a half elf. This was answered in 3.5 FAQ, and nothing in the PF bane changed.
Same as if a Ranger has Favored Enemy (Human), and Favored Enemy (Elf), he can use either one on a Half-Elf.
The reason both Bane's kick off is that they are triggered by a target condition. Bane (Human) triggers if the target is human (which a half-elf counts as). Bane (Elf) triggers if the target is Elf (Which a half-elf counts as).
Basically, Bane (humanoid1) and Bane (humanoid2) are two different weapon abilities. Both provide an untyped damage adder. The enhancement +2 is typed, so you only add 1 +2 to enhancement, but the damage dice themselves are untyped, and both apply so long as the target is the bane target.
Granted it's a corner case that only applies to Half-elfs and half-orcs. I doubt you'll find many Bane (Human) Bane (Elf) or Bane (Human) Bane (Orc) weapons floating around.
Unfortunately, what we have here is poorly worded rules that directly conflict with each other. There's two ways to interpret it :
A) The section about greater than +10 is in the magic item creation (weapons) section. You can interpret this as meaning that the rule applies to creation, and that all other rules apply after creation.
B) You can interpret the +10 limit as applying in all situations, not just item creation.
I can't see how the case is poorly worded or directly in conflict with each other.
Your interpretation A seems to be ignoring the line about character abilities and spells. They cannot possibly have effect on item creation, so that interpretation cannot be made, unless you disregard the line.If you choose B, then you are going to have situations where the rules about how spells and items work together are contridicted without any specification on how to handle them. For example, in the arrow example I gave above, no rules for which abilities drop off, does the GM choose, or the player, or the target? Is it random?
It is true that specifications aren't gven in the corner cases. But that isn't premise to disregard the rule at all.
I actually believe it is fairly simple:Enhancement bonus caps at +10.
I have a +6 weapon, that I want to add additional abilities to. Due to the cap, I cannot add more than a +4 bonus worth of enhancements to it.You arrow example really doesn't fly (pun intended) in this argument. Bows+arrow can in fact go beyond +10, as the limit is set to each weapon. By the rules a bow and arrow enhancements stack, so they can be combined to more than +10. The same is the case with wearing two shield. Their combined enhancements could give you a bonus effective of a +19 shield, but that isn't a problem as it are two seperate and stacking items (apart form the normal +x enhancement).
I prefer interpretation A because it makes any +10's situation applications on an attack made by a weapon, not the weapon itself as being > +10. I prefer this one as it requires no houserules and allows all other rules specified to work normally.
If you prefer B, you'll need to create house rules for how to handle instances where effective bonus rises above +10. These have to be houserules, because there is nothing in the rules to decide which ones don't work.
I think it is quite a stretch to say that we are resorting to houserules for making a ruling where the rules are unclear. Especially if you don't think that your interpretation A is a houserule, when it directly ignores something the is explicit in the rules.
Unfortunately, what we have here is poorly worded rules that directly conflict with each other. There's two ways to interpret it :
A) The section about greater than +10 is in the magic item creation (weapons) section. You can interpret this as meaning that the rule applies to creation, and that all other rules apply after creation.
B) You can interpret the +10 limit as applying in all situations, not just item creation.
I can't see how the case is poorly worded or directly in conflict with each other.
Your interpretation A seems to be ignoring the line about character abilities and spells. They cannot possibly have effect on item creation, so that interpretation cannot be made, unless you disregard the line.
Personally, I prefer A, and play with that, and have no plans on changing it. However, this is something that was specifically errated at some point.
A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10.
Page 468—In the Weapons section, change the third sentence of the third paragraph to read as follows:
A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.
I could have sworn I read in the FAQ that banes of different types stack. Obviously, that's not possible, since PF was what changed it to be half-elves counted as both human and elf. I'm searching the boards now for where I saw the banes worked on both now.
However, while searching, I found This Thread. James Jacobs addresses temporary bonuses, and notes that the limits of +10 only apply to the enhancements in the Magic Item chapter, not to other things that can affect the weapon.
A +5 dragon bane dancing greatsword is a legal weapon. Against a dragon, it would function as a +7 dragon bane dancing greatsword, but that doesn't increase its price at all (or put it over the limit of +10 weapon enhancements).
So then only the actual enhancement bonuses (what you pay for) are restricted by the +10 limit rather than the effective enhancement bonuses (such as bane's situational increase)?
In other words, the +10 weapon enhancement limit only really applies to the magic weapon enhancements shown in the magic items chapter?
Your example has an effective enhancement (bonuses and abilities) of +11 and an actual enhancement of +10. Am I to take that to mean that a +4 dancing flaming burst greatsword could benefit from a high caster level greater magic weapon spell (making it a +5 dancing flaming burst greatsword temporarily) since that is an effective enhancement bonus rather than an actual one?
The +10 weapon enhancement limit only applies to the magic weapon enhancements shown in the magic items chapter, yes.
My example of a +5 dragon bane (+1) dancing (+4) greatsword adds up to a +10 weapon, as far as I can tell.
Hmmm,
Ok, I guess I was wrong on the banes. Later in the same thread JJ says bane can't be put on more than once, so it's a moot point.
Actually, the errata ruling for itself was that a weapon couldn't be Bane to the same creature more then once. THe example was a Demon slaying sword that was both Evil Outsider and Chaotic Outsider Bane...and then Maybe Fire Outsider on top of it! Net result was still one Bane rating.
A dancing vorpal +1 Weapon is already +10. By your example, if you're not allowing a swap/sub, GMW would have no effect.
Bane making a weapon +7/+7 is allowed because that is what Bane specifically does...only against a certain foe. It's part of the +1 price. You get a +4 effect, but against a very specific number of foes.
==Aelryinth
Actually, the errata ruling for itself was that a weapon couldn't be Bane to the same creature more then once. THe example was a Demon slaying sword that was both Evil Outsider and Chaotic Outsider Bane...and then Maybe Fire Outsider on top of it! Net result was still one Bane rating.
A dancing vorpal +1 Weapon is already +10. By your example, if you're not allowing a swap/sub, GMW would have no effect.
Bane making a weapon +7/+7 is allowed because that is what Bane specifically does...only against a certain foe. It's part of the +1 price. You get a +4 effect, but against a very specific number of foes.
==Aelryinth
If you go back to the thread I linked to, and reread his quote I put above, you should see that JJ responded that no, the +10 was only at creation, and didn't include situational things. However, do whatever you like in your own game, of course.
Yes, you actually can, temporarily, get a weapon higher than a +10 equivalency weapon. It's not just with Paladins either.
The rule can not be broken temporarily as the rule specifically lists class abilities which are ALL temporary.
You load as much as you want on the bladem but ONLY powers up to the +10 limit which includes enhancement bonuses will function.
And how do you reconcile that with James Jacob's post and the thread I linked to above? Or does nobody bother reading the posts after the first 2 or 3?
There's nothing to reconcile.. the effective cap is +10, period, absolute limit for a non-epic weapon. You can try to pile on more, but it simply won't work unless it suppresses something pre-existing enough to get it within the limit.And how do you reconcile that with James Jacob's post and the thread I linked to above? Or does nobody bother reading the posts after the first 2 or 3?Yes, you actually can, temporarily, get a weapon higher than a +10 equivalency weapon. It's not just with Paladins either.
The rule can not be broken temporarily as the rule specifically lists class abilities which are ALL temporary.
You load as much as you want on the bladem but ONLY powers up to the +10 limit which includes enhancement bonuses will function.
Which is exactly the opposite of what JJ said in the post I quoted above, and on the thread I linked to. He stated the limitation was for 'ehancements in the creation chapter', which is not temporary spells or situational modifiers.
It amazes me when people argue till they are blue in the face, someone pulls out a dev posting, and people just blithly ignore it. Anyway, done with the thread. Houserule it however you wish for your games, I would have houseruled temporary bonuses are not restricted, but fortunately I don't have to.
And how do you reconcile that with James Jacob's post and the thread I linked to above? Or does nobody bother reading the posts after the first 2 or 3?
It's reconcilable when noting that JJ was replying to the opposite situation - someone attempting to say that a legal weapon wasn't, because it broke the +10 barrier under certain situations. The person replying to him, frankly, was abusing his trust by using cryptic language, and no examples, to "prove" his point in the reverse.
The Rule is clear. Feel free to disregard it as I do (outside of PFS of course).
I am fairly certain that a +1 munchkinbane weapon is still only a +2 weapon, it jusf hits munchkins harder cause *gasp* that's what bane does! Like was said upthread, the jug only gets so full. If you have a weapon with a +4 enhancement bonus and +5 other abilities, casting GMW just gets you a +5 weapon with +5 other abilities.
LOL,
I can't believe it. Even with a post directly from the Dev, people still won't admit they are wrong.
The posts by James Jacobs you refer to were made before the errata that added the language regarding class abilities and spells, and later in the same thread he was confronted with a statement by Joshua Frost /Jason Bulmahn that stated more or less the opposite of what he had said, to which Jacobs responded that he didn't want to get in a situation where game developers were contradicting eachother on rules corner cases and that you as GM should do what you felt was right, and the next errata (which is the current one) would clarify things.
The posts by James Jacobs you refer to were made before the errata that added the language regarding class abilities and spells, and later in the same thread he was confronted with a statement by Joshua Frost /Jason Bulmahn that stated more or less the opposite of what he had said, to which Jacobs responded that he didn't want to get in a situation where game developers were contradicting eachother on rules corner cases and that you as GM should do what you felt was right, and the next errata (which is the current one) would clarify things.
Well, if that's the case, the errata failed miserably to clarify things. If the temp buffs don't work, then there needs to be something in the rules on how to resolve it when the temp buffs or mixed buffs (magic arrow and magic bow stacking) are resolved.
I'm not one of those people that wants a rule for how people go to the bathroom in the wilderness (what type of trees are useful for toilet paper, random chance of poison oak, etc). However, with something that core to combat, if that's the way the Dev's intended it (that +10 was a hard set in concrete rule that extends to temp buffs and arrow/bow stacking) then the rules needed to be fleshed out to include how to fairly adjudicate what properties get removed/ignored. Anything else leaves people with no guiding princples to resolve the issue, as the rules in the rest of the book just talk about stacking as if it always works.
I agree, and in my games I'm likely to just let them stack/overlap fully. That's what makes the most sense to me (even though I think the rule states the opposite).
Perhaps I misunderstood his question. I thought he was asking as to the effective +X of all combined abilities, not the enhancement bonus itself. A +1 weapon has a +1 enhancement bonus. If you cast greater magic weapon on it, it can become a +2 enhancement bonus weapon (the +2 overlaps).
If the sword was a +1 flaming sword, then it would become a +2 flaming sword, as the enhancement bonus to hit and damage does not stack (likewise the enhancement bonus from masterwork does not stack with a +1 weapon).
However, I was under the impression he was asking in relation to special abilities. As I pointed out in my previous post, if you have a +1 weapon with +9 worth of special abilities, these are not enhancement bonuses, merely special abilities which count against the total price and power of the weapon. So a +1 flaming vorpal greatsword of speed (+1 enhancement bonus and +9 worth of special abilities) that has a high caster level greater magic weapon spell cast on it can reach being a +5 flaming vorpal greatsword of speed for the duration of the GMW effect; because the greater magic weapon effect modifies the enhancement bonus independent of the special abilities.
The same applies to armor as well. A +1 armor and +1 shield loaded with +9 worth of special abilities can reach the equivalency of a +14 armor while buffed with magic vestment.
It was the combined value of the item, that was in question.
But Thomas LeBlanc's quote from the prd states that it cannot be raised above +10 no matter what: "A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10."
Since they've included character abilities and spells, it seems to include GMW.
I'm not accepting this ruling from anyone at Paizo. The game designers should not hand out abilities that become useless once a character reaches the highest levels and obtains a quality weapon.
I will allow abilities like Divine Bond to stack with any other enhancements and abilities to temporarily raise the overall bonuses above +10. Otherwise, they should not build class special ability mechanics around adding bonuses. That means that a lvl 20 paladin or arcane duelist with a +5 vorpal weapon in essence loses one of their best special abilities. A class should not lose special abilities because of poor game design. Period.
So I'm going to assume that classes that can add abilities to weapons can exceed the +10 overall bonus for a certain amount of time per day. Punishing players for game designer choices is poor decision making for a rules judge. I won't be one of those rule judges that does his best to punish players in the name of balance by taking away their special abilities.
I'm not accepting this ruling from anyone at Paizo. The game designers should not hand out abilities that become useless once a character reaches the highest levels and obtains a quality weapon.
I will allow abilities like Divine Bond to stack with any other enhancements and abilities to temporarily raise the overall bonuses above +10. Otherwise, they should not build class special ability mechanics around adding bonuses. That means that a lvl 20 paladin or arcane duelist with a +5 vorpal weapon in essence loses one of their best special abilities. A class should not lose special abilities because of poor game design. Period.
So I'm going to assume that classes that can add abilities to weapons can exceed the +10 overall bonus for a certain amount of time per day. Punishing players for game designer choices is poor decision making for a rules judge. I won't be one of those rule judges that does his best to punish players in the name of balance by taking away their special abilities.
Maybe we just have different notions of the game. I don't think that divine bond becomes useless or the player is being punished, just because he might make choices that limites his class abilities.
I don't think having a +10 worth magic weapon is a basic situation for any paladin. While they would be better off being able to stack divine bond on top of it, the are still getting a lot out of their class ability by buying a +5 or +6 worth weapon, adding on divine bond, a spending the insane amount of gold they save on other magic items.
If they get into the situation where the can't use their ability, it is not due to poor game design, it is due to making certain choices (whether by the player or the GM) for your character.
Following the rules in this regard, is not punishing the players. It just sets a framework for whenever a certain ability is useful or not, which is exactly what the rules are meant to. There a plenty of alternatives to making your class ability obsolete, it is your choice whether you do it or not.
I'm not accepting this ruling from anyone at Paizo. The game designers should not hand out abilities that become useless once a character reaches the highest levels and...
If you think that +10 weapons should be the norm at the upper levels, well that's your style of game. I know it wasn't the style at Living City which had characters up to 20th level in play when the campaign closed down.
The argument that the ability wasn't built for Monty Haul games ergo it's useless won't buy much truck here.
Saying anyone who has a +10 weapon is Monty Haul is pretty insulting.
Wealth by level for PC's at 20 is 880,000 (that is at the beginning ot the level). With 25% of his welath going to weapons that is 220k. Thats a +10 weapon and a +3 backup weapon (roughly).
So while YOU may not ever see +10 weapons NORMAL rules allow for it an expect it at high level.
Now for a paladin to get full use of his weapon bond at 20th he would have to be limited to a +4 weapon. If you are using +4 weapons (32k value)at level 20 I would argue that YOUR game is the one outside of the normal parameters.
Well by that calculation, the +10 weapon is only relevant at level 20. The divine bond not stacking issue might become and issue earlier, but still believe that the paladin is better of with his divine bonded weapon than without it. So it really doesn't become useless, which was earlier commented.
By level 20, where another character might have a +10 weapon, the paladin can be satisfied with a +4 weapon, saving him 168k gp, or 19 % of his wealth by level. Even if he is dead set on a vorpal weapon, he can do with a +1 vorpal, saving him 128k.
When you add in the effect that the paladin is free to choose from some of the better magical enhancements in the game to adapt to the enemies he is facing, I would definately say that the divine bond is useful.
Eventhough a +10 (or +7-9) weapon might be an option at parts of the game, doesn't mean that it is a necessity.
It's not even the Divine Bond that bothers me so much. It's horrible game design, but whatever. What bothers me is that any character can trip all over this hiccup in the rules and there are exactly zero rules, guidelines, or suggestions on how to deal with it. Any character can wield a +x bow with +y arrows where the combination of x+y>10. How do the various bonuses stack out? Which bonus is left aside? What if it's a +4 speed bow firing +4 brilliant energy arrows? There's no combination of the three properties (+4, speed, and brilliant) that equals a +10 enchantment. Do you downrank the enhancement bonus to +3? Do you remove one of speed or brilliant energy? Which one, if so?
All of this wouldn't be needed if the errata hadn't been made. The game would still work perfectly well. Better, in fact.
It's not even the Divine Bond that bothers me so much. It's horrible game design, but whatever. What bothers me is that any character can trip all over this hiccup in the rules and there are exactly zero rules, guidelines, or suggestions on how to deal with it. Any character can wield a +x bow with +y arrows where the combination of x+y>10. How do the various bonuses stack out? Which bonus is left aside? What if it's a +4 speed bow firing +4 brilliant energy arrows? There's no combination of the three properties (+4, speed, and brilliant) that equals a +10 enchantment. Do you downrank the enhancement bonus to +3? Do you remove one of speed or brilliant energy? Which one, if so?
All of this wouldn't be needed if the errata hadn't been made. The game would still work perfectly well. Better, in fact.
I don't really understand why the bow+arrow is an issue. I can't find anything to suggest that you are not allowed to combine the enhancements of a bow and an arrow to gain a effective bonus above +10.
None of the items is above the cap of +10. Whatever the attack is, is not the question here.
And when bows and arrows aren't a problem, what exactly is the situations where people will find themselves without any guidelines on how to deal with it?
I can only see it occur, if you make an unprecedented assumption, that your class ability or spell is able to suppress existing enhancements.